I, for one, am shocked and appalled to hear the Normans did horrendous things in Yorkshire.

Mr. Polruan, pooled sovereignty is a nonsensical term. Believing the EU is good for the UK is a perfectly valid belief, but pretending we haven't given away rights to determine our own destiny through politicians elected by and accountable to the British public by surrendering vetoes is a sentiment not in accordance with the power of reason.

We’ve given away rights to act unilaterally in exchange for rights to influence (in some cases veto) multilateral actions. I’m sure that you could define metrics to show that as a net loss or gain of power depending on how you value different kinds of power.

Major, while Europe played a major role in his downfall - both the ERM and the Maastricht divisions, was brought down in the end as much by the desire for a change, a credible Labour alternative, and the continual sleaze stories. But Europe was a part.

Likewise, we can say that Thatcher was brought down by Europe, and on a proximate basis, that certainly played a major part in Howe's critique, but poll ratings and above all, the Poll Tax, were at least as important.

But I don't see where you get five from. Heath was brought down by his failure to either effectively confront the unions or to work with them, as well as the economic situation. The Tory Party might have suffered some division over EEC entry but it was not intrinsic to the early election or to Heath's failure to win it.

Major, while Europe played a major role in his downfall - both the ERM and the Maastricht divisions, was brought down in the end as much by the desire for a change, a credible Labour alternative, and the continual sleaze stories. But Europe was a part.

Likewise, we can say that Thatcher was brought down by Europe, and on a proximate basis, that certainly played a major part in Howe's critique, but poll ratings and above all, the Poll Tax, were at least as important.

But I don't see where you get five from. Heath was brought down by his failure to either effectively confront the unions or to work with them, as well as the economic situation. The Tory Party might have suffered some division over EEC entry but it was not intrinsic to the early election or to Heath's failure to win it.

Major, while Europe played a major role in his downfall - both the ERM and the Maastricht divisions, was brought down in the end as much by the desire for a change, a credible Labour alternative, and the continual sleaze stories. But Europe was a part.

Likewise, we can say that Thatcher was brought down by Europe, and on a proximate basis, that certainly played a major part in Howe's critique, but poll ratings and above all, the Poll Tax, were at least as important.

But I don't see where you get five from. Heath was brought down by his failure to either effectively confront the unions or to work with them, as well as the economic situation. The Tory Party might have suffered some division over EEC entry but it was not intrinsic to the early election or to Heath's failure to win it.

Major, while Europe played a major role in his downfall - both the ERM and the Maastricht divisions, was brought down in the end as much by the desire for a change, a credible Labour alternative, and the continual sleaze stories. But Europe was a part.

Likewise, we can say that Thatcher was brought down by Europe, and on a proximate basis, that certainly played a major part in Howe's critique, but poll ratings and above all, the Poll Tax, were at least as important.

But I don't see where you get five from. Heath was brought down by his failure to either effectively confront the unions or to work with them, as well as the economic situation. The Tory Party might have suffered some division over EEC entry but it was not intrinsic to the early election or to Heath's failure to win it.

Mrs May will have done her duty, and remarkably well in the awful circumstances. She has come back with a decent implementation of Brexit, which is as good as anyone could have got. It reflects the letter and spirit of the referendum result. Although much detail remains to be filled in, it looks as though it would achieve this without causing too much economic damage. She has even managed to get the EU to back down on one of their sacred 'four freedoms'.

But there's a fatal flaw: she hasn't brought MPs along with her. Maybe it would always have been impossible to do so, given the catastrophic GE2017 result, but she hasn't helped herself by her remote and inflexible style.

Nonetheless she comes out of this with enormous credit for her determination and resilience. Whatever comes next will be even more chaotic, but it will no longer be her problem.

In practice, I can't see any alternative now to asking for an Article 50 extension, and probably a referendum to decide between Revoke and the Deal, which would have the great merit that either result would be workable. The obstacles to getting there, legal and political, are horrendous, but does anyone else have any better idea?

And why should we wish to have undue influence in foreign nations? I have no desire for our government to able to meddle in Slovenian politics, nor for Slovenians to be able to hold sway over UK political decisions.

Mr. Price, expecting numeracy from a party led by a socialist is optimistic.

Major, while Europe played a major role in his downfall - both the ERM and the Maastricht divisions, was brought down in the end as much by the desire for a change, a credible Labour alternative, and the continual sleaze stories. But Europe was a part.

Likewise, we can say that Thatcher was brought down by Europe, and on a proximate basis, that certainly played a major part in Howe's critique, but poll ratings and above all, the Poll Tax, were at least as important.

But I don't see where you get five from. Heath was brought down by his failure to either effectively confront the unions or to work with them, as well as the economic situation. The Tory Party might have suffered some division over EEC entry but it was not intrinsic to the early election or to Heath's failure to win it.

Major, while Europe played a major role in his downfall - both the ERM and the Maastricht divisions, was brought down in the end as much by the desire for a change, a credible Labour alternative, and the continual sleaze stories. But Europe was a part.

Likewise, we can say that Thatcher was brought down by Europe, and on a proximate basis, that certainly played a major part in Howe's critique, but poll ratings and above all, the Poll Tax, were at least as important.

But I don't see where you get five from. Heath was brought down by his failure to either effectively confront the unions or to work with them, as well as the economic situation. The Tory Party might have suffered some division over EEC entry but it was not intrinsic to the early election or to Heath's failure to win it.

Good article. She isn't going to resign, however, as the only option is her deal. It's not like Dave in June 2016 leaving it to someone else to negotiate the deal because as you say, there is no time for a new prospectus from the Cons.

The only option is that if the deal fails, and I continue to believe that it won't, then she goes back again the following week with something that would look and sound like a compromise but would likely be a kick into the medium-length grass. Something like an "endeavour to revisit the backstop..." type clause which will buy off the rebels.

Put simply, it is her deal or no deal and it is not going to be no deal.

Good article. She isn't going to resign, however, as the only option is her deal. It's not like Dave in June 2016 leaving it to someone else to negotiate the deal because as you say, there is no time for a new prospectus from the Cons.

The only option is that if the deal fails, and I continue to believe that it won't, then she goes back again the following week with something that would look and sound like a compromise but would likely be a kick into the medium-length grass. Something like an "endeavour to revisit the backstop..." type clause which will buy off the rebels.

Put simply, it is her deal or no deal and it is not going to be no deal.

You're forgetting your own usual logic. Why would Labour vote for it?

There isn't going to be any deal acceptable to the DUP, and even in the best case scenario for the government there will be Tory rebels.

Major, while Europe played a major role in his downfall - both the ERM and the Maastricht divisions, was brought down in the end as much by the desire for a change, a credible Labour alternative, and the continual sleaze stories. But Europe was a part.

Likewise, we can say that Thatcher was brought down by Europe, and on a proximate basis, that certainly played a major part in Howe's critique, but poll ratings and above all, the Poll Tax, were at least as important.

But I don't see where you get five from. Heath was brought down by his failure to either effectively confront the unions or to work with them, as well as the economic situation. The Tory Party might have suffered some division over EEC entry but it was not intrinsic to the early election or to Heath's failure to win it.

Can I please ask a question for any leavers who believe the backstop is a price worth paying to ensure Brexit ... of whom there are a few here, Casino, Sean F and Richard T I believe ... would you say that still if instead of being for Northern Ireland it instead applied to England and Scotland?

If we were being told that upon exit England and Scotland would still in perpetuity be subjected to EU regulations, would in perpetuity be stuck in the customs area . . . And that we would have no MEPs etc to change that and we could never unilaterally end this arrangement, it would take EU permission to change anything and that might never come ...

... if the backstop applies to us would you still think it was a price worth paying?

Good article. She isn't going to resign, however, as the only option is her deal. It's not like Dave in June 2016 leaving it to someone else to negotiate the deal because as you say, there is no time for a new prospectus from the Cons.

The only option is that if the deal fails, and I continue to believe that it won't, then she goes back again the following week with something that would look and sound like a compromise but would likely be a kick into the medium-length grass. Something like an "endeavour to revisit the backstop..." type clause which will buy off the rebels.

Put simply, it is her deal or no deal and it is not going to be no deal.

You're forgetting your own usual logic. Why would Labour vote for it?

There isn't going to be any deal acceptable to the DUP, and even in the best case scenario for the government there will be Tory rebels.

Well somehow I am thinking that the Cons will come round. If not on first vote, then on second.

I am expecting a max (as per NPXMP's estimate) of six Lab MPs to vote with the govt. Plus we have that LD now so that's a start.

Completely Off TopicWhy are new car sales dropping - these guys have an opinion. They're right about my motives, but overall - I dunno. I'd be interested to hear from RCS on this."The Impending Big Auto/Oil Implosion Explained | In Depth"

Good article. She isn't going to resign, however, as the only option is her deal. It's not like Dave in June 2016 leaving it to someone else to negotiate the deal because as you say, there is no time for a new prospectus from the Cons.

The only option is that if the deal fails, and I continue to believe that it won't, then she goes back again the following week with something that would look and sound like a compromise but would likely be a kick into the medium-length grass. Something like an "endeavour to revisit the backstop..." type clause which will buy off the rebels.

Put simply, it is her deal or no deal and it is not going to be no deal.

You're forgetting your own usual logic. Why would Labour vote for it?

There isn't going to be any deal acceptable to the DUP, and even in the best case scenario for the government there will be Tory rebels.

Labour might abstain at the price of a general election, ideally post-March 29th. Seek to "win the peace" and all that. Quite how that bargain could be struck is beyond me at the moment (obviously there is a NoCon route to one).

Well somehow I am thinking that the Cons will come round. If not on first vote, then on second.

Once more for those at the back:

The passing of the Grieve amendment has permanently stripped May of any opportunity to ask Parliament to vote again. Whatever Plan B she wants is now irrelevant, because Parliament will salami-slice and amend it into whatever they want.

May has one *and only one* chance to prevent Parliament from Taking Back Control, and that's win the Meaningful Vote.

To be fair, they've both lost about the same number of percentage points of support since their election. People forget that Macron only got about 25% in the first round

Apples and pears. The report suggested that Macron would currently win well over his current approval rating in a first round election because although many French don't approve of him, they dislike the alternatives even more.

Can I please ask a question for any leavers who believe the backstop is a price worth paying to ensure Brexit ... of whom there are a few here, Casino, Sean F and Richard T I believe ... would you say that still if instead of being for Northern Ireland it instead applied to England and Scotland?

If we were being told that upon exit England and Scotland would still in perpetuity be subjected to EU regulations, would in perpetuity be stuck in the customs area . . . And that we would have no MEPs etc to change that and we could never unilaterally end this arrangement, it would take EU permission to change anything and that might never come ...

... if the backstop applies to us would you still think it was a price worth paying?

If at the same time, we were making no financial contributions to the EU, and were exempt from FOM, I would accept that the backstop was mutually uncomfortable, and that each side had good reason to compromise in future negotiations.

Good article. She isn't going to resign, however, as the only option is her deal. It's not like Dave in June 2016 leaving it to someone else to negotiate the deal because as you say, there is no time for a new prospectus from the Cons.

The only option is that if the deal fails, and I continue to believe that it won't, then she goes back again the following week with something that would look and sound like a compromise but would likely be a kick into the medium-length grass. Something like an "endeavour to revisit the backstop..." type clause which will buy off the rebels.

Put simply, it is her deal or no deal and it is not going to be no deal.

You're forgetting your own usual logic. Why would Labour vote for it?

There isn't going to be any deal acceptable to the DUP, and even in the best case scenario for the government there will be Tory rebels.

Labour might abstain at the price of a general election, ideally post-March 29th. Seek to "win the peace" and all that. Quite how that bargain could be struck is beyond me at the moment (obviously there is a NoCon route to one).

That would mean Labour would own this, betray their members and then even if they win the GE they’ll be consumed by further Brexit negotiations.

Well somehow I am thinking that the Cons will come round. If not on first vote, then on second.

Once more for those at the back:

The passing of the Grieve amendment has permanently stripped May of any opportunity to ask Parliament to vote again. Whatever Plan B she wants is now irrelevant, because Parliament will salami-slice and amend it into whatever they want.

May has one *and only one* chance to prevent Parliament from Taking Back Control, and that's win the Meaningful Vote.

And may god have mercy on her soul.

Everything is up in the air even whether the vote will take place but while I accept TM may well resign, she will not resign offering a referendum.

The move in public opinion seems to be hardening against the EU and certainly another referendum does not seem at all certain

Maybe a taste of no deal but the UK and EU markets are tanking this afternoon

Good article. She isn't going to resign, however, as the only option is her deal. It's not like Dave in June 2016 leaving it to someone else to negotiate the deal because as you say, there is no time for a new prospectus from the Cons.

The only option is that if the deal fails, and I continue to believe that it won't, then she goes back again the following week with something that would look and sound like a compromise but would likely be a kick into the medium-length grass. Something like an "endeavour to revisit the backstop..." type clause which will buy off the rebels.

Put simply, it is her deal or no deal and it is not going to be no deal.

You're forgetting your own usual logic. Why would Labour vote for it?

There isn't going to be any deal acceptable to the DUP, and even in the best case scenario for the government there will be Tory rebels.

Labour might abstain at the price of a general election, ideally post-March 29th. Seek to "win the peace" and all that. Quite how that bargain could be struck is beyond me at the moment (obviously there is a NoCon route to one).

That would mean Labour would own this, betray their members and then even if they win the GE they’ll be consumed by further Brexit negotiations.

Excellent header - but I think you *are* being too charitable. It’s been obvious for months that May couldn’t deliver Brexit due to rebellious factions within her own party and her minority position in the Commons. If she had put the national interest ahead of her own position, she would either have faced down the ERG sooner, sought to trigger another GE in the hope of returning a Commons that could govern, or pursued formal cooperation with other parties. Or failing that, agreed this deal on schedule 6 months ago so there was more time to work out what happens next.

Mrs May will have done her duty, and remarkably well in the awful circumstances. She has come back with a decent implementation of Brexit, which is as good as anyone could have got. It reflects the letter and spirit of the referendum result. Although much detail remains to be filled in, it looks as though it would achieve this without causing too much economic damage. She has even managed to get the EU to back down on one of their sacred 'four freedoms'.

But there's a fatal flaw: she hasn't brought MPs along with her. Maybe it would always have been impossible to do so, given the catastrophic GE2017 result, but she hasn't helped herself by her remote and inflexible style.

Nonetheless she comes out of this with enormous credit for her determination and resilience. Whatever comes next will be even more chaotic, but it will no longer be her problem.

In practice, I can't see any alternative now to asking for an Article 50 extension, and probably a referendum to decide between Revoke and the Deal, which would have the great merit that either result would be workable. The obstacles to getting there, legal and political, are horrendous, but does anyone else have any better idea?

Major, while Europe played a major role in his downfall - both the ERM and the Maastricht divisions, was brought down in the end as much by the desire for a change, a credible Labour alternative, and the continual sleaze stories. But Europe was a part.

Likewise, we can say that Thatcher was brought down by Europe, and on a proximate basis, that certainly played a major part in Howe's critique, but poll ratings and above all, the Poll Tax, were at least as important.

But I don't see where you get five from. Heath was brought down by his failure to either effectively confront the unions or to work with them, as well as the economic situation. The Tory Party might have suffered some division over EEC entry but it was not intrinsic to the early election or to Heath's failure to win it.

To be fair, they've both lost about the same number of percentage points of support since their election. People forget that Macron only got about 25% in the first round

Apples and pears. The report suggested that Macron would currently win well over his current approval rating in a first round election because although many French don't approve of him, they dislike the alternatives even more.

If he follows the same trajectory as Hollande he'll be down to single figures before long.

Good article. She isn't going to resign, however, as the only option is her deal. It's not like Dave in June 2016 leaving it to someone else to negotiate the deal because as you say, there is no time for a new prospectus from the Cons.

The only option is that if the deal fails, and I continue to believe that it won't, then she goes back again the following week with something that would look and sound like a compromise but would likely be a kick into the medium-length grass. Something like an "endeavour to revisit the backstop..." type clause which will buy off the rebels.

Put simply, it is her deal or no deal and it is not going to be no deal.

You're forgetting your own usual logic. Why would Labour vote for it?

There isn't going to be any deal acceptable to the DUP, and even in the best case scenario for the government there will be Tory rebels.

Labour might abstain at the price of a general election, ideally post-March 29th. Seek to "win the peace" and all that. Quite how that bargain could be struck is beyond me at the moment (obviously there is a NoCon route to one).

That would mean Labour would own this, betray their members and then even if they win the GE they’ll be consumed by further Brexit negotiations.

Well, there'll be further Brexit negotiations in any case [even under Remain, one suspects]. If it really comes down to Deal vs No Deal, then letting the Deal through with a GE attached isn't a bad result for Labour.

To be fair, they've both lost about the same number of percentage points of support since their election. People forget that Macron only got about 25% in the first round

Apples and pears. The report suggested that Macron would currently win well over his current approval rating in a first round election because although many French don't approve of him, they dislike the alternatives even more.

Im not so sure. The first round tends to be a free for all where people vote according to their choice and there are usually about 8 or 9 candidates

If he makes it in to the second round diiferent call

The risk for France is Lepen versus Melenchon which is not impossible. If Macron faces Lepen he will win as the left will vote to keep Lepen out. If its Macron versus Melenchon it's a closer call a lot of FN voters used to be on the extreme left

Mrs May will have done her duty, and remarkably well in the awful circumstances. She has come back with a decent implementation of Brexit, which is as good as anyone could have got. It reflects the letter and spirit of the referendum result. Although much detail remains to be filled in, it looks as though it would achieve this without causing too much economic damage. She has even managed to get the EU to back down on one of their sacred 'four freedoms'.

But there's a fatal flaw: she hasn't brought MPs along with her. Maybe it would always have been impossible to do so, given the catastrophic GE2017 result, but she hasn't helped herself by her remote and inflexible style.

Nonetheless she comes out of this with enormous credit for her determination and resilience. Whatever comes next will be even more chaotic, but it will no longer be her problem.

In practice, I can't see any alternative now to asking for an Article 50 extension, and probably a referendum to decide between Revoke and the Deal, which would have the great merit that either result would be workable. The obstacles to getting there, legal and political, are horrendous, but does anyone else have any better idea?

We did. We told them it would only work with someone who understood and believed in Brexit in charge.

Another unicorn

Theresa May demonstrates more understanding of Brexit than any one of the Brexiteers

Rubbish. She understands Brexit as well as you do and to be frank I often wonder how you manage to tie your own shoelaces in the morning.

Then you shouldn’t have gone ahead with it until you were absolutely certain that one of The Enlightened would be running it, if it was so obvious that a non-Enlightened in control would bring about this disaster.

Good piece. And if pushed would tend to agree with its conclusions.When the deal was signed we were assured by many posters that Tory rebels would fall into line, and that Labour would obviously abstain.Still seems to be some wishful thinking. May won't win the vote. Labour won't abstain. We're 12 days since the agreement was signed. Nothing that has happened since then suggests either prospect has come closer. It is going down.

We did. We told them it would only work with someone who understood and believed in Brexit in charge.

Another unicorn

Theresa May demonstrates more understanding of Brexit than any one of the Brexiteers

It's a shame she felt the need to lie to parliament and the general public about the Irish Sea customs border though. 2 years of telling everyone they could have their cake and eat it, then suddenly at the last minute admitting to the truth that had been plain to see all along.

I'd have a lot more respect for her if she'd been honest from the get go.

Can I please ask a question for any leavers who believe the backstop is a price worth paying to ensure Brexit ... of whom there are a few here, Casino, Sean F and Richard T I believe ... would you say that still if instead of being for Northern Ireland it instead applied to England and Scotland?

If we were being told that upon exit England and Scotland would still in perpetuity be subjected to EU regulations, would in perpetuity be stuck in the customs area . . . And that we would have no MEPs etc to change that and we could never unilaterally end this arrangement, it would take EU permission to change anything and that might never come ...

... if the backstop applies to us would you still think it was a price worth paying?

If at the same time, we were making no financial contributions to the EU, and were exempt from FOM, I would accept that the backstop was mutually uncomfortable, and that each side had good reason to compromise in future negotiations.

I don't understand this logic.

We will be in a position where we have free trade but on Europes terms and subject to Europes rules and customs. No say in rules or customs and no money or free movement as you say.

Now what is going to change? Unless we are going to restore paying money to them, or going to restore free movement then what do they gain from a free trade deal which isn't entirely written by them to suit them? Unless we are planning to end free trade, start paying or start free movement it looks like the only variable to be changed is to restore control from them to us but what do they gain from that?

Well somehow I am thinking that the Cons will come round. If not on first vote, then on second.

Once more for those at the back:

The passing of the Grieve amendment has permanently stripped May of any opportunity to ask Parliament to vote again. Whatever Plan B she wants is now irrelevant, because Parliament will salami-slice and amend it into whatever they want.

May has one *and only one* chance to prevent Parliament from Taking Back Control, and that's win the Meaningful Vote.

And may god have mercy on her soul.

Everything is up in the air even whether the vote will take place but while I accept TM may well resign, she will not resign offering a referendum.

The move in public opinion seems to be hardening against the EU and certainly another referendum does not seem at all certain

Maybe a taste of no deal but the UK and EU markets are tanking this afternoon

Well somehow I am thinking that the Cons will come round. If not on first vote, then on second.

Once more for those at the back:

The passing of the Grieve amendment has permanently stripped May of any opportunity to ask Parliament to vote again. Whatever Plan B she wants is now irrelevant, because Parliament will salami-slice and amend it into whatever they want.

May has one *and only one* chance to prevent Parliament from Taking Back Control, and that's win the Meaningful Vote.

And may god have mercy on her soul.

Parliament can amend the motion all they like, it doesn't change the fact that there is only one deal on the table and, absent it being agreed, we are leaving with No Deal on the 29th March.

The only way to change those facts is to pass new legislation (or take the risk of revoking A50 without an Act of Parliament; I can't see how that case could be decided other than in line with Miller).

Well somehow I am thinking that the Cons will come round. If not on first vote, then on second.

Once more for those at the back:

The passing of the Grieve amendment has permanently stripped May of any opportunity to ask Parliament to vote again. Whatever Plan B she wants is now irrelevant, because Parliament will salami-slice and amend it into whatever they want.

May has one *and only one* chance to prevent Parliament from Taking Back Control, and that's win the Meaningful Vote.

And may god have mercy on her soul.

Everything is up in the air even whether the vote will take place but while I accept TM may well resign, she will not resign offering a referendum.

The move in public opinion seems to be hardening against the EU and certainly another referendum does not seem at all certain

Maybe a taste of no deal but the UK and EU markets are tanking this afternoon

China v US

Bloomberg were saying Brexit is weighting on sentiment as well as China v US

Well somehow I am thinking that the Cons will come round. If not on first vote, then on second.

Once more for those at the back:

The passing of the Grieve amendment has permanently stripped May of any opportunity to ask Parliament to vote again. Whatever Plan B she wants is now irrelevant, because Parliament will salami-slice and amend it into whatever they want.

May has one *and only one* chance to prevent Parliament from Taking Back Control, and that's win the Meaningful Vote.

And may god have mercy on her soul.

Parliament can amend the motion all they like, it doesn't change the fact that there is only one deal on the table and, absent it being agreed, we are leaving with No Deal on the 29th March.

The only way to change those facts is to pass new legislation (or take the risk of revoking A50 without an Act of Parliament; I can't see how that case could be decided other than in line with Miller).

Has Grieve's amendment lulled the remainers into a false sense of security ?

In practice, I can't see any alternative now to asking for an Article 50 extension, and probably a referendum to decide between Revoke and the Deal, which would have the great merit that either result would be workable. The obstacles to getting there, legal and political, are horrendous, but does anyone else have any better idea?

You may be right.

But given the number of people who believe Revoke *isn't* workable because "will of the people", and the number of workable options then left in your equation.. I find it remarkable how many MPs on both sides are treating this deal like leprosy.

We did. We told them it would only work with someone who understood and believed in Brexit in charge.

Another unicorn

Theresa May demonstrates more understanding of Brexit than any one of the Brexiteers

Rubbish. She understands Brexit as well as you do and to be frank I often wonder how you manage to tie your own shoelaces in the morning.

Then you shouldn’t have gone ahead with it until you were absolutely certain that one of The Enlightened would be running it, if it was so obvious that a non-Enlightened in control would bring about this disaster.

"you shouldn't"

Lol - I remember being asked at a GE to choose between two parties who wanted Brexit.

We did. We told them it would only work with someone who understood and believed in Brexit in charge.

Another unicorn

Theresa May demonstrates more understanding of Brexit than any one of the Brexiteers

Rubbish. She understands Brexit as well as you do and to be frank I often wonder how you manage to tie your own shoelaces in the morning.

Then you shouldn’t have gone ahead with it until you were absolutely certain that one of The Enlightened would be running it, if it was so obvious that a non-Enlightened in control would bring about this disaster.

Just a shame none of them really wanted the responsibility, and ran away from it the minute it threatened to bite.

Can I please ask a question for any leavers who believe the backstop is a price worth paying to ensure Brexit ... of whom there are a few here, Casino, Sean F and Richard T I believe ... would you say that still if instead of being for Northern Ireland it instead applied to England and Scotland?

If we were being told that upon exit England and Scotland would still in perpetuity be subjected to EU regulations, would in perpetuity be stuck in the customs area . . . And that we would have no MEPs etc to change that and we could never unilaterally end this arrangement, it would take EU permission to change anything and that might never come ...

... if the backstop applies to us would you still think it was a price worth paying?

If at the same time, we were making no financial contributions to the EU, and were exempt from FOM, I would accept that the backstop was mutually uncomfortable, and that each side had good reason to compromise in future negotiations.

I don't understand this logic.

We will be in a position where we have free trade but on Europes terms and subject to Europes rules and customs. No say in rules or customs and no money or free movement as you say.

Now what is going to change? Unless we are going to restore paying money to them, or going to restore free movement then what do they gain from a free trade deal which isn't entirely written by them to suit them? Unless we are planning to end free trade, start paying or start free movement it looks like the only variable to be changed is to restore control from them to us but what do they gain from that?

Can you explain how the UK can export into the EU without their requirements on standards and regulations

Well somehow I am thinking that the Cons will come round. If not on first vote, then on second.

Once more for those at the back:

The passing of the Grieve amendment has permanently stripped May of any opportunity to ask Parliament to vote again. Whatever Plan B she wants is now irrelevant, because Parliament will salami-slice and amend it into whatever they want.

May has one *and only one* chance to prevent Parliament from Taking Back Control, and that's win the Meaningful Vote.

And may god have mercy on her soul.

Everything is up in the air even whether the vote will take place but while I accept TM may well resign, she will not resign offering a referendum.

The move in public opinion seems to be hardening against the EU and certainly another referendum does not seem at all certain

Maybe a taste of no deal but the UK and EU markets are tanking this afternoon

China v US

Bloomberg were saying Brexit is weighting on sentiment as well as China v US

When Theresa may won the leadership election a lot of us questioned her achievements, and her supporters here said it was an achievement just to hang on in the home office. Once again she's hung on, but there is precious little else to note in her favour.

The negotiation has been disastrously mishandled. We owe the EU a great deal of money. Yes, we were never going to default on money we owed, but was every point negotiated on? The sum? The timespan of payments? There's a big difference between cash upfront and dragging it out. The EU was/is facing severe financial difficulties and we held all the cards. But to press home our advantage May would have risked inflicting a symbolic defeat on the EU - not something she would ever countenance.

Parliament can amend the motion all they like, it doesn't change the fact that there is only one deal on the table and, absent it being agreed, we are leaving with No Deal on the 29th March.

The only way to change those facts is to pass new legislation (or take the risk of revoking A50 without an Act of Parliament; I can't see how that case could be decided other than in line with Miller).

The minutes and hours after the fall of the MV is going to be fascinating. We're going to see political aligments shift at a speed never before observed, as everyone vies to be in commanding position to drive Parliament's attempts to come to a settled view on what to do next.

Some of the following will happen. Labour will move a VONC, and the DUP will either abstain or vote against, letting the government survive. At that point they will shift to supporting one of:

* A second referendum on deal-vs-remain.* The Norway+ pivot

But which way will Labour jump? It could go either way, but I think it depends a lot on exactly what happens in those all-important hours after the fall of the Meaningful Vote.

When Theresa may won the leadership election a lot of us questioned her achievements, and her supporters here said it was an achievement just to hang on in the home office. Once again she's hung on, but there is precious little else to note in her favour.

The negotiation has been disastrously mishandled. We owe the EU a great deal of money. Yes, we were never going to default on money we owed, but was every point negotiated on? The sum? The timespan of payments? There's a big difference between cash upfront and dragging it out. The EU was/is facing severe financial difficulties and we held all the cards. But to press home our advantage May would have risked inflicting a symbolic defeat on the EU - not something she would ever countenance.

Actually that would be a fair solution - as the EU doesn't want the backstop either - why not defer all payments until a trade deal completed and there is no need for the backstop.

Parliament can amend the motion all they like, it doesn't change the fact that there is only one deal on the table and, absent it being agreed, we are leaving with No Deal on the 29th March.

The only way to change those facts is to pass new legislation (or take the risk of revoking A50 without an Act of Parliament; I can't see how that case could be decided other than in line with Miller).

The minutes and hours after the fall of the MV is going to be fascinating. We're going to see political aligments shift at a speed never before observed, as everyone vies to be in commanding position to drive Parliament's attempts to come to a settled view on what to do next.

Some of the following will happen. Labour will move a VONC, and the DUP will either abstain or vote against, letting the government survive. At that point they will shift to supporting one of:

* A second referendum on deal-vs-remain.* The Norway+ pivot

But which way will Labour jump? It could go either way, but I think it depends a lot on exactly what happens in those all-important hours after the fall of the Meaningful Vote.

Interesting, but does 'they' in 'they will shift to supporting one of...' refer to the DUP or the government?

Either way. one huge difficulty is that a pivot to Norway+ doesn't get round the backstop dead-end.

Can I please ask a question for any leavers who believe the backstop is a price worth paying to ensure Brexit ... of whom there are a few here, Casino, Sean F and Richard T I believe ... would you say that still if instead of being for Northern Ireland it instead applied to England and Scotland?

If we were being told that upon exit England and Scotland would still in perpetuity be subjected to EU regulations, would in perpetuity be stuck in the customs area . . . And that we would have no MEPs etc to change that and we could never unilaterally end this arrangement, it would take EU permission to change anything and that might never come ...

... if the backstop applies to us would you still think it was a price worth paying?

If at the same time, we were making no financial contributions to the EU, and were exempt from FOM, I would accept that the backstop was mutually uncomfortable, and that each side had good reason to compromise in future negotiations.

I don't understand this logic.

We will be in a position where we have free trade but on Europes terms and subject to Europes rules and customs. No say in rules or customs and no money or free movement as you say.

Now what is going to change? Unless we are going to restore paying money to them, or going to restore free movement then what do they gain from a free trade deal which isn't entirely written by them to suit them? Unless we are planning to end free trade, start paying or start free movement it looks like the only variable to be changed is to restore control from them to us but what do they gain from that?

Can you explain how the UK can export into the EU without their requirements on standards and regulations

Through democratic engagement in the EU they are our shared standards that we develop together rather than theirs, which we implement without a say.

Parliament can amend the motion all they like, it doesn't change the fact that there is only one deal on the table and, absent it being agreed, we are leaving with No Deal on the 29th March.

The only way to change those facts is to pass new legislation (or take the risk of revoking A50 without an Act of Parliament; I can't see how that case could be decided other than in line with Miller).

The minutes and hours after the fall of the MV is going to be fascinating. We're going to see political aligments shift at a speed never before observed, as everyone vies to be in commanding position to drive Parliament's attempts to come to a settled view on what to do next.

Some of the following will happen. Labour will move a VONC, and the DUP will either abstain or vote against, letting the government survive. At that point they will shift to supporting one of:

* A second referendum on deal-vs-remain.* The Norway+ pivot

But which way will Labour jump? It could go either way, but I think it depends a lot on exactly what happens in those all-important hours after the fall of the Meaningful Vote.

Stephen Lloyd is entirely implicitly correct, the sensible path is to support May's deal then go for another referendum if it fails thereafter. A point of nuance lost on Strong and Cable.

Nice to see there's still a few prepared to die in the ditch with Theresa.

She's produced a poor deal which many seem to think isn't worth supporting and because she refused to allow for the contingency planning of No Deal, what might have been an orderly and managed departure from the EU without an agreement risks turning into a national economic disaster.

Parliament can amend the motion all they like, it doesn't change the fact that there is only one deal on the table and, absent it being agreed, we are leaving with No Deal on the 29th March.

The only way to change those facts is to pass new legislation (or take the risk of revoking A50 without an Act of Parliament; I can't see how that case could be decided other than in line with Miller).

The minutes and hours after the fall of the MV is going to be fascinating. We're going to see political aligments shift at a speed never before observed, as everyone vies to be in commanding position to drive Parliament's attempts to come to a settled view on what to do next.

Some of the following will happen. Labour will move a VONC, and the DUP will either abstain or vote against, letting the government survive. At that point they will shift to supporting one of:

* A second referendum on deal-vs-remain.* The Norway+ pivot

But which way will Labour jump? It could go either way, but I think it depends a lot on exactly what happens in those all-important hours after the fall of the Meaningful Vote.

Interesting, but does 'they' in 'they will shift to supporting one of...' refer to the DUP or the government?

Either way. one difficulty is that a pivot to Norway+ doesn't get round the backstop dead-end.

Norway+ will certainly require both an extension to A50 and a significant renegotiation of both the WA and PD. Would be a seriously big ask of the EU27 unless they believe our pivot is genuine.

Parliament can amend the motion all they like, it doesn't change the fact that there is only one deal on the table and, absent it being agreed, we are leaving with No Deal on the 29th March.

The only way to change those facts is to pass new legislation (or take the risk of revoking A50 without an Act of Parliament; I can't see how that case could be decided other than in line with Miller).

The minutes and hours after the fall of the MV is going to be fascinating. We're going to see political aligments shift at a speed never before observed, as everyone vies to be in commanding position to drive Parliament's attempts to come to a settled view on what to do next.

Some of the following will happen. Labour will move a VONC, and the DUP will either abstain or vote against, letting the government survive. At that point they will shift to supporting one of:

* A second referendum on deal-vs-remain.* The Norway+ pivot

But which way will Labour jump? It could go either way, but I think it depends a lot on exactly what happens in those all-important hours after the fall of the Meaningful Vote.

Surely we MUST have 48 letters then, too. Which means the Conservative Party tectonic plates will buckle.In which case any potential new PM is going to have to get off the fence and outline an at least plausible way forward.*